Where Do Natural Rights Come From?

[Jon Miller]

become in tune with God

Jon Miller

[Ramo]

That which created life created her eggs.

No, she created her eggs.

Would you suggest mothers created their own brains and limbs too?

Yes, to a certain extent. Human bodies grow on their own, you know.

And this all proves she did create you? Don't you think whomever or whatever did create the universe, or at least life on this planet, is ultimately responsible for your existence?

No one or nothing "created" the universe or life on the planet.

Simple, people did not create you, therefore they have no moral claim to your existence.

1. Why?
2. If someone did create me, would he have moral claim to my existence.

Yes you are. Natural rights exist because that which created you granted you life and liberty regardless of whether or not another person enslaves you.

1. Why?
2. If natural processes created me, how could it "grant" me anything?
3. If a deity created me, why does it have moral authority to grant me anything? I believe I have moral rights to life and liberty without its consent.

I may or may not, but I certainly don't if I didn't create you.

1. Why?
2. May or may not? What does that mean? Are you suggesting that if you created me, I "might" be your slave?
2. Then why did you bring up creation in the first place?

Ownership!

Again, ownership is a legal concept.
What does creation have to do with moral rights to self-determination? If you created me, I certainly would not subjugate myself to you.

Ownership! Why do you instinctively react in your defense when attacked? Because "ownership" is hardwired...

Yes, the propensity to survive is hard-wired. And? The propensity to eat is hard-wired. Does that mean I have a right to eat all I want?

I thought you didn't believe in morality by majority rule?

That is correct. How does the statement you quoted imply I believe in morality by majority rule?

That might be relevant if there was some "deity" trying to compel you to act a certain way.

Let's suppose there was a deity trying to compel me to act in a certain way. Are you saying that It has moral authority to do so? What kind of libertarian are you?

So you believe in a moral system and don't know or care if it's valid? If you do care, did you not seek some truth as the basis for your moral system?

It is logically valid, and I do care about that. And there is no such thing as objective truth. Again, any assertion relies on making assumptions.

So 2+2 = 4 is an invalid statement?

Not if you make the right assumptions. But it isn't objective truth either.

Because morality becomes meaningless if it has no foundation.

Why?

Sure it is, either an act is moral or it is either immoral or morally neutral.

Why?

An immoral act doesn't become moral just because the actor says so.

Why not?

The conditioning you were talking about was societal, not biological.

What if someone is borned mentally abnormal in this respect?

And don't point to suicide again, we're talking about people without special circumstances altering their situation.

What's a special circumstance and what isn't? Isn't homosexuality a special circumstance? If so, why did you bring it up?

So you believe this apathetic person wants to be murdered?

No, I believe that this apathetic person is apathetic about being murdered. Maybe he's on lots of drugs or something. Maybe he's insane. Take your pick, but I'm sure people like this have existed.

You need to prove there are apathetic people who want to be murdered.

No, I don't. Why are you avoiding my point? Why does the fact that there are people who aren't totally apathetic (this is something you are asserting) prove that the golden rule is a universal moral?

By equating murder with suicide.

I never said that. But killing a suicidal person is indeed murder in this country. Sorry if you don't like, I don't either, but that's how it is.

I am. Did you not argue that suicide proves my claim that no one wants to be murdered is false?

Yes, but you keep on ignoring what I'm saying right after that. Again: " A nonconsentual killing is nonconsentual, I agree with that. But that's a definition (The fact that a logical assertion "A" implies "A", doesn't imply that "A" is true)."

Citing unnamed biologists and putting words in their mouths proves nothing. Survival instincts are hardwired into our genetic code, natural selection is a theory about how environmental factors favor certain traits over others leading to the evolution of species.

Of course. Natural selection is the algorithm through which these survival instincts have been hammered into our genetic code. Are you seriously disputing this?

"My mind"? Isn't that a statement of ownership?

No, it's a statement of biology.

Since we don't hesitate upon being attacked to ponder whether or not the state allows us to react, self-defense is hardwired into our being. That is a universal trait from which I conclude "life" is a natural right granted us by that which created us (in addition to the fact we did not create each other).

But you need to justify this assertion. You need to show why us having a propensity to survive implies that "life" is a natural right granted to us. And why do you keep on bringing this silly stuff about creation?

Bad logic, rape is not a universal trait. How do you explain homosexuals who don't want to procreate? It appears even this propensity to spread our genes is not universal.

No, neither is the propensity to survive. I again cite those who are suicidal. The propensity to spread our genes is near universal, however.

I do? Where did I say I have the moral authority to rule over you because something created you?

You keep on implying it. You just did in this post with the "maybe, maybe not" comment. Why does a creator have moral authority to grant me life and liberty if he/it moral doesn't have authority to deny me it? Isn't that the whole point of a "grant?"

That's my view of creation?

Yes. A mother doesn't create her child, so by the same logic, I didn't create that car (rather this mysterious "creator" did). Can you tell me why this analogy fails?

The proof for this natural right to life is that other people didn't create you, therefore, other people lack any moral claim to your existence.

Why?

The fact we are hardwired to survive - a universal trait - is just more evidence.

Why?

And there are only a few that are universal, rape is not one.

Neither is survival.

But what about the right to eat. Certainly that's as universal as survival, right?

It discredits any moral claim they make to enslave you.

Why? If it were true, would it justify the moral claim they make to enslave me?

You don't have a natural right to the labor of others for the same reason slavery violates the victim's natural rights. Build your own apartment...

But his natural right to not give me the apartment violates my natural right to the apartment. Why shouldn't he build another apartment?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Berzerker
GePap -

A standard or principle that applies to everyone, a standard or principle based on universal traits. No one wants to be murdered, that is a universal trait. Therefore murder is immoral... No one wants to be enslaved (no, Mr Garrison's fetishes don't count), therefore, slavery too is immoral... Additionally, a simple principle upon which to base morality comes from certain observable facts. We did not create each other, therefore, we lack moral claims to each other's existence. People "own" themselves because their existence comes directly from that which created them...

Only time I will use this format:
1. No creature wishes to die, but die they do. People do not "own" themselves: what created them was a combinations of the parent's gametes within the mother's uterus. By this account, children are their parents property, since they are the direct result fo the labor, time, and effort of their parents, not only in the conception, but the creation: your body was built because your mother ingested proteins and fats and minerals that went towards your body. Obviously you don't think children are their parents property, but it also means your "self-evident" facts are anything but.

They sure didn't try to hide their persecution of undesirables, only the holocaust.

Every society persecutes undesirables to one extent or another: by the very 'fact' that they are undesireable, they are 'worthy' of persecution, no? Are we not correct to persecute child molestors? Why, just broaden your definition a little....

Yup, which is why the Golden Rule dis-allows slavery.

So just don't use it! No wait, the Bible, the supposed source of this rule, mentions slavery and generally approves of it....

That's illogical, you just said the Golden Rule requires equality but conclude it isn't needed when other moral systems have gross inequalities. Am I reading you wrong?

A moral system does not need equality to work. Lets say you design a system in which the highest value is bravery. Brave acts are seen as the most morally correct, cowardly acts as inherently imoral. Now, under such a system some who has done brave acts deserves respect and some coward deserves scorn. But what about those who have not had the chance? How can someone who has done nothing brave expect equal treatment as someone who has? There can be no reciprocity between the two sets, they are not equal. This is even more correct for the difference between the brave and the coward. Why would it be imoral for the brave to get cowards for slaves? The brave are 'better', are they not, and by being cowards, the 'slaves' have forfeited their rights. Hell, they SHOULD be slaves, should they not?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Natural rights exist because that which created you granted you life and liberty regardless of whether or not another person enslaves you.

As Ramo said (and I haven't recieved an answer), how can nature grant you with rights? It isn't sentient. If there is a deity, do you think that he and he alone is the fountain of rights? The only way the natural rights argument works is if there is a God, and in that instance, the best government is NOT one of liberty, but of piety, which is run by God's church.

Other 'grants' of morality are difficult to imagine. Do the atoms grant your rights? Or your DNA? How can something without rights of its own (nature) grant rights. In order to grant rights, it must take those rights from itself.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
in that instance, the best government is NOT one of liberty, but of piety, which is run by God's church.

You're making a huge leap there.

What about the simple right to exist? Who grants us that right?

[Caligastia]

I do.

[DaShi]

Thanks. Much appreciated!

[Caligastia]

You're welcome!

[Imran Siddiqui]

What about the simple right to exist? Who grants us that right?

No one can be sure. However, if it is God, then would it not follow that the proper government, one which is most moral according to God's will be run by God's people? This is the exact line of thinking used by the Church in Mideval Europe. I don't think it is a huge leap at all.

[BeBMan]

Interesting debate. I´m not sure if I understood everything correctly, but since when is this a reason not to take part....

So, maybe someone can answer me some things:

Imran

Because morality is a democratic process. The morals that prevail are those people that have the power. After all every law is legislated morality.

Of course this depends on a democratic society. An authoritarian society doesn't require this majority, only that the people in charge agree with a moral position.

But this reduces all to the question "who has the power?". In democratic societies it is the majority, in an authoritarian society it is the leadership - so far so good.

Does this mean that a certain behaviour, let´s say torture, is still moral in an authoritarian society, where the leadership has the power to do such things, but where a majority of the people is against torture (and of course against being tortured), but can´t do anything against it? Is a certain behaviour moral within a society when it can be enforced in this society?

That would also mean that you can exchange different "morals" easily by changing the rule of a society. Several people mentioned the Nazi time here - does it mean the rules of moral had changed since january 1933 in Germany, and changed again in may 1945?

[tinyp3nis]

As for the Nazis, they, even Hitler knew that what they were doing was wrong. I believe they had the crazy idea that had their plans been realized, then posterity would view them as heroes and patriots and all the evil would be made up by making Germany great. They did believe the end justified the means.

Doesn't prove that. The reason why not to tell someone maybe just the fact that all hell would brake loose if the truth came out. Maybe Hitler just knew other people would not accept his morals? I mean it's possible he didn't see anything wrong what he was doing or even the methods, but he knew how other people would feel about it, and fear the results.
A good example of this could be if I kill someone as self defence, I would be hiding the thing from police, not because it's wrong in my mind (which is not), but because It's againts the law in Finland and bad things would happen to me if they knew.

Btw I see where this thread is going, only one standing after this mess is Berzerker the master of copy pasting and illogical statements.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

What about the simple right to exist? Who grants us that right?

No one can be sure. However, if it is God, then would it not follow that the proper government, one which is most moral according to God's will be run by God's people? This is the exact line of thinking used by the Church in Mideval Europe. I don't think it is a huge leap at all.

Depends on the God. God may not be all that concerned about government. Render unto Caeser and all that... What is God's will anyway?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Does this mean that a certain behaviour, let´s say torture, is still moral in an authoritarian society, where the leadership has the power to do such things, but where a majority of the people is against torture (and of course against being tortured), but can´t do anything against it?

Yes.

And yes, it is basically based on who has the power in society. Everything is about power: who has it, who wants it, and where it is going.

That would also mean that you can exchange different "morals" easily by changing the rule of a society.

Yep.

[Ben Kenobi]

This thread will hit 500 easily..

First post:
Ramo:

My morality and my thoughts on the nature of morality don't force you to respect the rights of others.

Precisely. Why should I care if you live or die if morality is relative?

Why would you consider it immoral for me to kill you?

People with less authority were often slaughtered by people with more authority, and these ideas fit within the moral paradigm.

Would you consider this moral behavior today?

I've always wondered about this. Is it that you think God plants a certain moral system into every person, or that God has ultimate moral authority, so whatever he says is moral is by definition moral?

Ramo,
God as a perfect moral being by nature cannot do what is wrong. God also puts a conscience into every human being.

[Ben Kenobi]

Second post:

GePap:

If the Nazi's had acted as if they t[h]emselves did not believe anything wrong was being done and acted in ways that were utterly consistent with their own stated fundamental values, then I would be incapable of stating that they are acting truly immorally.

So a truly consistent philosophy is always right because inconsistencies are a feature of false moral systems?

Interesting. Do you believe relativism is a truly consistent philosophy?


Master Zen:

I personally can't stand the idea that a "church" tells me what's right and what's wrong.

No, Christians teach, 'test all things, hold onto the good.' This includes matters of Faith and religion. For what good is Faith if not tested?

What do I get for following the moral rules of the church?

Is Church a consumer good?